By Eric SchweibenzOn January 22, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated January 9, 2013) in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853). According to the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part a motion filed by Complainants Technology Properties Limited LLC, Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, and Patriot Scientific Corporation (collectively, “Complainants”) to compel document production and interrogatory responses from Respondent Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”).
In support of the motion, Complainants argued that Huawei repeatedly promised to produce documents and supplement discovery responses regarding 18 accused products, but failed to do so. Huawei opposed the motion and argued that the parties were not at an impasse with respect to any substantive issue and that the motion is effectively moot because Huawei has supplemented its interrogatory responses and has begun to produce documents.
In the Order, ALJ Gildea noted that Huawei supplemented the discovery responses at issue and began producing documents to Complainants on a rolling basis, but also noted that Huawei did not do so until after Complainants filed their motion. ALJ Gildea found Huawei’s approach in this respect “concerning” and reminded the parties of their obligation to diligently comply with discovery requests prior to the fact discovery deadline and to “avoid overloading the end of the discovery period.” Accordingly, ALJ Gildea granted Complainants’ motion in part and to the extent not already completed, ordered Huawei to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Complainants’ discovery requests on a rolling basis such that its production is complete by the close of business on February 8, 2013.